Christos and Krishna

I have quoted extensively from the book Way of a Pilgrim, since this book and its tradition are the basis for a mystic practice in Christianity involving taking the name of Jesus on beads, a practice that clearly mimics the devotional practices of Vaishnavism. During the 1980s devotees approached Śrīdhara Mahārāja and asked him about the relative value of this practice. This has been documented in The Search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa which we published at Guardian of Devotion Press in 1982.

“Christian: There is one book called The Way of The Pilgrim, about a Christian who chants the name of Jesus on beads.

Śrīdhar Mahārāj: Yes, the Catholics also use beads. Some Christians may chant the name of Christ.

Christian: This man was chanting the name of Jesus, his heart was growing soft, and he was feeling ecstasy, great love for Jesus.

Śrīdhar Mahārāj: Then he may attain the position of Jesus, at most. It may be that in his attempt for perfection, his growth is finished there, in the eternal paraphernalia of Jesus. He may remain there. If he has found his fullest satisfaction, he is fated to be there.

Many people objected that we included this section in the Search for Śrī Kṛśṇa. It was not "politically correct," we were told, since Śrīdhara Mahārāja appears to relativize the position of Jesus Christ. After all, hadn't Prabhupāda taught that the name was the same, whether Kristos or Krishna? In fact, of course, Prabhupāda in his conversations with Catholic and Orthodox priests was being generous and ecumenical. He was emphasizing the need for some religious practice in the godless 1960s, admitting that meditation on Jesus was worthwhile as long as the abhorrent practice of animal slaughter was left behind. (See the complete conversation with Father Emmanuel.  http://www.krishnapath.org/krishna-and-christ-with-srila-prabhupada-and-father-emmanuel/) In the above comments from The Search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Śrīdhara Mahārāja draws an important ontological distinction between the teachings of Jesus and the ontology of the Krishna conception.

After all, if "The name is the same," we return to the question, "Why chant Hare Krishna?" The Jesus prayer would appear to be sufficient. Why adopt a different practice when Christianity is complete?  

It may be argued that Śrīdhara Mahārāja was naive--that as an adherent of an Eastern tradition, he was unaware of Christianity. But Śrīdhara Mahārāja was in his 80s at the time of these conversations. He was hardly innocent of any understanding of Christianity. In fact, he had been educated in the Jesuit school of President's College in Calcutta, where the authorities did their best to convert Bengalis to Christianity. He had been well aware of Christian doctrine and practice, not only as an erudite scholar, but as a preacher who had represented the Gaudiya Math all his life. Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja had published any number of scholarly articles and advised on the printing of many titles in English since the 1930s. He was highly esteemed by Professor Sannyal of Ravenshaw College who was Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's voice in English. When we read Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati in English, we are reading the translations of Sannyal, who often consulted Śrīdhara Mahārāja on ontological and philosophical matters. Śrīdhara Mahārāja was well aware of the positions of Christian theologists, but held that Christianity falls short of the true principles of divine love taught in the Vaishnava school of  Chaitanya Mahāprabhu.

His point here is that Kristos promises salvation, especially salvation from sin. The promise of salvation or liberation mirrors the idea of "oneness" given by the school of Shankaracharya, the Advaitavadis. The "afterlife" in Christianity is left undefined. Dante's treatment of heaven in the Divine Comedy is fanciful, involving 9 spheres in a concentric pattern, each level bringing one closer to God who is identified as the Father. Dante has a flash of understanding in which he sees the divine light.  Some versions of heaven have angels circling in clouds playing Hosannahs in excelsior on golden harps; others have us reunited with lost family members. Many of these versions of heaven have fallen from favor; they are considered antiquated. Christians envision the afterlife as a kind of oneness with the eternal universe of divinity. 

Christian ideas of afterlife run the gamut from oneness with the universe to a life with "God the Father." Śrīdhara Mahārāja holds that an impersonal concept of God is imperfect. If the goal of Christianity is to become one with universal spirituality it resembles the "oneness" theory promulgated by the Advaita school of Vedānta. In that sense it is external, for it lacks any true consideration of divine love. True divine love must encompass not only immortality, but positive immortality of the sort permeated with rasa  or divine emotion.

In his analysis of the Jesus Prayer, Śrīdhara Mahārāja continues: [By chanting the name of Jesus...] "Then he may attain the position of Jesus, at most. It may be that in his attempt for perfection, his growth is finished there, in the eternal paraphernalia of Jesus. He may remain there. If he has found his fullest satisfaction, he is fated to be there. "

It is clear that Śrīdhara Mahārāja considers that the followers of Jesus may attain immortality in the spiritual position of Brahman. He considers this superficial, since there is no devotional position there.  But there is no prejudice expressed against the followers of Jesus. They may be able to penetrate even higher and develop a true devotional position.

"By the will of God, and by the powerful will of an exalted devotee, even from the impersonal Brahman effulgence one may be roused from his slumber and moved to action in devotional service. Generally, they pass long ages there in the nondifferentiated plane, satisfied with their spiritual attainment; however, in the consideration of infinite time, nothing is very great or spacious. They may remain holding that position for a long time, so many dissolutions and creations may come and go, but the possibility remains that their slumber may be broken at any time. Since time immemorial, this created world has been in existence, and so many souls are ascending to the Brahman effulgence and again descending. So, even in the midst of the infinite Brahman effulgence, some souls are coming out. It is a question of infinity, so the position of Jesus may be considered as eternal, and the time may come when Jesus himself may be converted into Vaiṣṇavism. It is not impossible.”

Since Jesus never speaks of Krishna or Vishnu, since he never describes the "Personality of Godhead" as such, but only refers to "My Father who is in heaven" in a vague sort of way, Śrīdhara Mahārāja has concluded that Jesus is not a Vaishnava. The "Christian" in the conversation is a friend of mine and I was personally present for many of these conversations. He was surprised when Śrīdhara Mahārāja insisted that Jesus was not a Vaishnava and was determined to probe further. 

“Christian: Do you think that Jesus had awareness of Kṛṣṇa as the Personality of Godhead?

Śrīdhar Mahārāj: When his inner attainment is most closely detected, then we are bound to say that in the course of his eternal life, there is some possibility of his achieving Kṛṣṇa.

At this point in the conversation, it is clear that Śrīdhara Mahārāja is considering Jesus as a teacher. Śrīdhara Mahārāja familiar with the teachings of Jesus, and here he is analyzing his position in terms of the teachings he has left. There are Christian theologians, for example, Karl Barth, who hold that the teachings of Jesus are not important; for such Christians the resurrection of Christ is the basis for faith, not the teachings of Jesus. In his sermon "Threatened by the Resurrection, Karl Barth describes the resurrection of Christ as "not a  miracle, but the miracle of God--the all-inclusive reneweal that leads from death to life that comes from him, God's life-word, resurrection from the dead! 

Christ's resurrection is the be-all and end-all of Christian faith for Barth, who discards the teachings of Jesus as interesting but irrelevant historical trivia. Rudolph Bultmann also finds that that historical Jesus is of little interest and that historical analysis of the New Testament if futile. On the other hand, 

Jesus’ resurrection is at the very core of the message preached by His disciples.  C.S. Lewis points out that the task of the apostles was to  “preach Christianity meant primarily to preach the Resurrection.” Followers of this point of view show that the founder of the Catholic church, the apostle Paul himself, stresses the  the importance of resurrection. According to Paul, if Christ had not been raised from the dead, our sins would not have been forgiven and Christian faith would be futile. (1 Cor. 15:17) The meaning of the resurrection can be seen and interpreted differently. Christ was risen from the dead and then went up to heaven. But what exactly is the concept of heaven or afterlife? 

If the conception of heaven and afterlife is similar to one-ness, then Śrīdhara Mahārāja's analysis holds. The completion of religious practice, then is salvation from sin, liberation from death, and ultimately the non-differentiated immortality celebrated in India by the Shankara school. Taken as a teacher, what Jesus promises not only through his teachings but even through his resurrection is "liberation from sin," and "salvation." If salvation from birth and death is unity with God or immortality, we're back to square one.  According to the Vaishnava school, liberation in One-ness is a stagnant position. 

Śrīdhara Mahārāja has so far explained that yes, there may be some benefit in deeply meditating on the holy name of Jesus and his teachings, but that since Jesus himself seems to teach Unity with the Godhead, his own position in terms of bhakti or divine love, is suspect. The Christian in the conversation isn't happy. Let's continue our analysis of the conversation with Śrīdhara Mahārāja in the Search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Christian: I don’t understand.

Śrīdhar Mahārāj: Is Jesus stagnant or progressive? Where he has reached, is that finished forever, or is he dynamic?

Christian: Christians will say that he has full knowledge.

Śrīdhar Mahārāj: So, is he stagnant there, finally fixed? Is that Jesus’ position? Do the bishops say that his position is final? Does he have a progressive life? Or is Jesus alone barred from making further progress? Is he a member of the dynamic world? Or the stagnant world?”

Śrīdhara Mahārāja is pointing out that all teachers have room for growth. If Jesus is a teacher, he may also have something to learn, even as the Son of God. According to Rupa Goswami, the worship God the Father is not the highest possible conception of divinity. Worship of the Fatherhood of Godhead implies awe and reverence, which impedes true devotion. Love vitiated by terror cannot be pure love. If God inspires terror as does the Old Testament Father, he cannot be the object of complete love. This has been described more completely by Rupa Goswami especially in Bhakti-Rasāmṛta Sindhu.  

Śrīdhara Mahārāja insists that the conception of Godhead as advanced by Christian theologians is incomplete as it doesn't consider complete love and its implications. The Kṛṣṇa conception is a complete version of divine love and must be considered by those who are interested in going deeper. The nature of the infinite is not an easy thing. No teacher is absolutely finished in studying the infinite,  not even Jesus himself.

“So, this is the nature of the infinite. Being finite, we are going to deal with the infinite? That is our ludicrous tendency. It is ludicrous for us to deal with the infinite. Why is Kṛṣṇa considered to be the Absolute Truth? This you should inquire about in a scientific way, step by step. As I have recommended, you should go on reading about that in the Śrī Kṛṣṇa Saṁhitā, and the Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta. You should try to follow very minutely the dynamic development of theism as it is presented there.”